Tag: dispute

“Quite clearly the resignation of Urjit Patel shows that nothing has changed,” Yashwant Sinha, a former finance minister and member of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, told CNBC-TV18. The Modi government has stacked the RBI’s 18-member board with its own nominees, in what critics say is a move to exert greater control over the central bank’s regulatory powers. Patel’s sudden resignation is expected to roil financial markets on Tuesday. Investors will be keen to know who is Patel’s replacement

Analysts and market watchers said the recent dispute between the RBI and the government could have been a major factor in Patel’s decision to resign.

“Quite clearly the resignation of Urjit Patel shows that nothing has changed,” Yashwant Sinha, a former finance minister and member of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, told CNBC-TV18.

“The resignation is a clear sign of the government trying to interfere with the working of the RBI,” he added.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has been putting pressure on the RBI to ease its regulatory curbs on some banks, infuse more liquidity and relax capital norms as it faces a slowing economy ahead of general elections due by May.

RBI Deputy Governor Viral Acharya said in a speech in October that undermining a central bank’s autonomy could be “catastrophic”, prompting a public dispute that added to the rift between the bank and government.

The Modi government has stacked the RBI’s 18-member board with its own nominees, in what critics say is a move to exert greater control over the central bank’s regulatory powers.

Trade frictions between the world’s two largest economies go well beyond the parameters of imports and exports. Washington has been attempting to negotiate with Beijing about issues like forced tech transfers and intellectual property theft, but there’s a growing sense among international analysts that talks may also be touching on other deep-rooted issues in their relationship, particularly on the national security and military front. The ongoing spat is a reflection of great power rivalries, p

Trade frictions between the world’s two largest economies go well beyond the parameters of imports and exports.

Washington has been attempting to negotiate with Beijing about issues like forced tech transfers and intellectual property theft, but there’s a growing sense among international analysts that talks may also be touching on other deep-rooted issues in their relationship, particularly on the national security and military front.

The ongoing spat is a reflection of great power rivalries, political scientist Joseph Nye wrote in a Project Syndicate editorial last month: “It is much more than a typical trade dispute like, say, America’s recent clash with Canada over access to that country’s dairy market.”

Many economists have pointed out that the current dispute is more of a tech war than a tariff war as U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration targets China’s technology sector practices. Beijing’s militarization of the South China Sea and the sovereignty of Taiwan could also be influencing negotiations.

East Tech West Day Three: Investing during the U.S.-China trade dispute4 Hours AgoOn the final day of CNBC’s East Tech West event in the Nansha district of Guangzhou, China, issues from the U.S.-China trade dispute to competition in the tech industry filled the day. CNBC’s Uptin Saiidi recaps the event.

East Tech West Day Three: Investing during the U.S.-China trade dispute

4 Hours Ago

On the final day of CNBC’s East Tech West event in the Nansha district of Guangzhou, China, issues from the U.S.-China trade dispute to competition in the tech industry filled the day. CNBC’s Uptin Saiidi recaps the event.

In a statement, Apple said that its App Store has fueled competition. The company said the store is responsible for the creation of millions of jobs and more than $100 billion in payments to app developers. The precedent the court is revisiting was set in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, a 1977 dispute in which the court ruled in favor of concrete brick manufacturers. Rather, Apple will say that it is acting as an agent for app developers, who ultimately are selling their wares to consumers. Whil

The court’s decision in the case, which is named Apple Inc. v. Pepper, No. 17-204, could have an impact beyond Apple. It could also open up other tech companies that operate electronic marketplaces, like Facebook, Ebay, Amazon and Alphabet’s Google, to similar challenges.

In a statement, Apple said that its App Store has fueled competition. The company said the store is responsible for the creation of millions of jobs and more than $100 billion in payments to app developers.

“We are hopeful the Supreme Court will recognize Apple’s critical role as a marketplace for apps, and uphold existing legal precedent by finding in favor of Apple and the millions of developers who sell their apps on our platform,” the company said.

Despite affecting the biggest tech companies in the world, Monday’s case hinges on how the Supreme Court’s justices will apply a decidedly low-tech ruling from the latter half of the 20th century.

The precedent the court is revisiting was set in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, a 1977 dispute in which the court ruled in favor of concrete brick manufacturers. The state of Illinois sued the brickmakers for allegedly inflating their prices, causing an increase in the the cost of public building projects.

The court ruled that even though the increased brick costs might hurt Illinois indirectly, only the contractors who actually bought the bricks had standing to sue. That established the so-called “Illinois brick doctrine,” which says that only the direct purchaser of a good can collect damages from a monopoly holder.

Apple, which is supported by the Justice Department, will argue Monday that it is not directly selling apps to iPhone users. Rather, Apple will say that it is acting as an agent for app developers, who ultimately are selling their wares to consumers. In exchange for the commission Apple takes on app sales, the company provides access to its vast user base and performs other services, such as malware detection.

That view is supported by The App Association, an industry group that represents developers. The group has said that, in its view, “the customer is unequivocally buying from the app developer, not the platform the developer sold their app through,” and cautioned that a ruling against Apple could jeopardize the app economy.

But the iPhone owners bringing the suit take a different view. They argue that Apple directly sells the apps in its store, and has gone to “great lengths” to keep it that way, both by establishing technical barriers to other marketplaces and by penalizing those who jailbreak their devices.

While Apple does not price the goods in its App Store, the iPhone users argue that Apple still exercises control over pricing. Apple requires that that any app sold have a price that ends in 99 cents, such as $1.99.

Herbert Hovenkamp, one of the country’s top antitrust experts and a professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Law and The Wharton School, the university’s business school, joined a brief supporting the iPhone owners in the case.

In an interview, Hovenkamp said that the case is distinct from Illinois Brick.

In that case, he said, it was the brickmakers who were alleged to be conspiring to inflate prices. But in this case, the equivalent party — the app developers — are innocent, potentially even victims of the alleged monopoly.

“Illinois Brick assumes that you’ve got an antitrust violator, and that violator sells to some innocent retailer or distributor, or someone in the middle, and then that innocent retailer sells to someone who then sues,” Hovenkamp said. But, in this case, it’s different: Apple, the alleged violator, is the one in the middle, he said.

Peter Navarro, U.S. President Donald Trump’s trade advisor and a hardliner on China, has been sidelined by the White House — but prospects of a trade deal between the world’s two largest economies remain bleak, experts told CNBC. The U.S. and China have engaged in a trade fight this year, with Trump repeatedly attacking China for intellectual property theft, barriers to U.S. companies operating in China, and a massive trade imbalance. The U.S. president is expected to meet Chinese President Xi J

Peter Navarro, U.S. President Donald Trump’s trade advisor and a hardliner on China, has been sidelined by the White House — but prospects of a trade deal between the world’s two largest economies remain bleak, experts told CNBC.

The U.S. and China have engaged in a trade fight this year, with Trump repeatedly attacking China for intellectual property theft, barriers to U.S. companies operating in China, and a massive trade imbalance. The U.S. president is expected to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping at the G-20 summit in Argentina this month to talk trade.

CNBC reported Wednesday that the White House has deliberately curtailed Navarro’s public profile in the wake of an apparent dispute between him and top economic advisor Larry Kudlow.

Neither Kudlow nor Navarro is expected to depart from the White House.

Things may be looking up for U.S.-China trade relations, which in turn is good for networking hardware colossus Cisco Systems, Chairman and CEO Chuck Robbins told CNBC on Wednesday. “We’re beginning to hear some positive sound bytes around this,” Robbins told Jim Cramer in an exclusive “Mad Money” interview. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping are expected to meet at the summit. “We implemented some price increases, as we said we would, and, frankly, we didn’t see any differe

Things may be looking up for U.S.-China trade relations, which in turn is good for networking hardware colossus Cisco Systems, Chairman and CEO Chuck Robbins told CNBC on Wednesday.

“We’re beginning to hear some positive sound bytes around this,” Robbins told Jim Cramer in an exclusive “Mad Money” interview. “I’m optimistic that we’ll get to some resolution that is good for both and really allows us to continue this global expansion of the economy that we’ve all been enjoying for the last few years.”

Robbins may have been referring to top White House economic advisor Larry Kudlow’s comments to CNBC’s David Faber on Tuesday, which confirmed reports that U.S. and Chinese officials had restarted trade talks ahead of the G-20 summit at the end of the month. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping are expected to meet at the summit.

“We’re moving ahead on trade discussions,” Kudlow said in the interview.

Cisco’s CEO admitted that his company was affected by the Trump administration’s 10-percent tariffs on imports from China in its fiscal first quarter, reported after Wednesday’s closing bell.

“We implemented some price increases, as we said we would, and, frankly, we didn’t see any difference in the momentum before we did that and the momentum we saw after that in the quarter,” Robbins told Cramer. “Obviously, we would prefer that the tariffs don’t get increased to 25 percent in January.”

Still, Robbins said his “belief all along has been that once we got through the midterms, that the administration would begin to really focus on this,” and so far, that seems to be coming to fruition.

In the meantime, Cisco is delivering “consistent” growth as more and more companies realize just how complicated it is to seamlessly and securely shift their operations to the cloud, a process that is now fueling Cisco’s bottom line, the CEO said.

French authorities grounded a Ryanair plane at Bordeaux airport in a dispute over money they say the Irish airline owes. The plane, bound for London’s Stansted airport, was grounded on Thursday. The authority did not specify the amount owed by Ryanair, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment. While it has reached deals with several unions, it faces resistance from staff in a number of countries. The European Commission in October opened an investigation into whether Ryanair ha

French authorities grounded a Ryanair plane at Bordeaux airport in a dispute over money they say the Irish airline owes.

The civil aviation authority said on Friday the carrier was obliged to pay back money it received as aid related to its activities at the regional airport of Angouleme between 2008 and 2009.

The aid was later deemed illegal by the European Commission. The plane, bound for London’s Stansted airport, was grounded on Thursday.

“It is unfortunate that the state had to take such action, which led to the inevitable inconvenience of the 149 passengers on board,” the aviation authority said.

The passengers eventually took off five hours late on another Ryanair aircraft. The authority did not specify the amount owed by Ryanair, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

This has been a turbulent autumn for the airline. In October, the airline warned on full-year profits in the wake of a surge in the oil price and disruption caused by strikes. While it has reached deals with several unions, it faces resistance from staff in a number of countries.

The European Commission in October opened an investigation into whether Ryanair had benefited from illegal state aid at Germany’s Frankfurt-Hahn airport, and this week Italy’s antitrust agency opened a probe against Ryanair’s new hand luggage policies.

AT&T’s WarnerMedia has accused the U.S. Department of Justice of “collaborating” with Dish Network in a high profile dispute over carrying HBO and Cinemax. About 2.5 million of Dish’s 13 million customers subscribe to HBO or Cinemax, according to one person familiar with the matter. WarnerMedia said it had offered to extend the contract to continue discussing a new deal but Dish executives declined to negotiate further. “This behavior, unfortunately, is consistent with what the Department of Jus

AT&T’s WarnerMedia has accused the U.S. Department of Justice of “collaborating” with Dish Network in a high profile dispute over carrying HBO and Cinemax.

For the first time in its 40-year history, Warner Media’s HBO, known for its award winning TV series “Game of Thrones” and “The Sopranos,” went dark on Dish’s satellite television service on Thursday after a disagreement over a new distribution deal.

About 2.5 million of Dish’s 13 million customers subscribe to HBO or Cinemax, according to one person familiar with the matter. AT&T also owns DirecTV, a satellite TV rival to Dish.

WarnerMedia said it had offered to extend the contract to continue discussing a new deal but Dish executives declined to negotiate further.

“Dishs proposals and actions made it clear they never intended to seriously negotiate an agreement,” said Simon Sutton, HBO president and chief revenue officer.

The dispute could be a public relations blow to AT&T, which is heading back into court in December when oral arguments begin in the DOJ’s appeal of the antitrust decision approving the No. 2 U.S. wireless carrier’s $85 billion deal to buy Time Warner.

“This behavior, unfortunately, is consistent with what the Department of Justice predicted would result from the merger,” a DOJ representative said. “We are hopeful the Court of Appeals will correct the errors of the District Court.

The Justice Department’s statement was amplified by Fox Business Network journalist Charlie Gasparino’s tweet on the matter.

AT&T fired back: The Department of Justice collaborated closely with Dish in its unsuccessful lawsuit to block our merger,” a WarnerMedia spokesman said in a statement. “That collaboration continues to this day with Dishs tactical decision to drop HBO not the other way around. DOJ failed to prove its claims about HBO at trial and then abandoned them on appeal.

Dish declined comment on the accusation.

“The merger created for AT&T immense power over consumers,” said Andy LeCuyer, DISH senior vice president of programming, in a prepared statement. “It seems AT&T is implementing a new strategy to shut off its recently acquired content from other distributors.”

Dish testified against the deal in March, arguing that AT&T’s concession to get the deal done was not strong enough to protect competitors. AT&T proposed that for seven years it would submit to third-party arbitration any disagreement with distributors over the pricing for Time Warner’s networks and promise not to black out programming during arbitration.

WATCH:Netflix shares are up 2,400 percent and the rest of the media industry is struggling — here’s why

Hot-headed actor Alec Baldwin was arrested Friday after punching a man in the face in a dispute over a parking spot on the street, in New York City, police said. The “30 Rock” star Baldwin was in custody after the incident in the East Village section of Manhattan. Sources told WNBC-TV in New York that the dispute involving the 60-year-old Baldwin was over a parking spot. The station said Baldwin hopped out of his car when the other man swiped the spot and punched him. Police told CNBC that offic

Hot-headed actor Alec Baldwin was arrested Friday after punching a man in the face in a dispute over a parking spot on the street, in New York City, police said.

The “30 Rock” star Baldwin was in custody after the incident in the East Village section of Manhattan.

Baldwin, who was released about two hours after his arrest, was charged with third-degree assault and harassment. He did not respond to reporters’ questions about the incident.

Sources told WNBC-TV in New York that the dispute involving the 60-year-old Baldwin was over a parking spot. The station said Baldwin hopped out of his car when the other man swiped the spot and punched him.

Police told CNBC that officers responded to East 10th Street at about 2 p.m. after someone called 911 to report an assault.

Police said that when cops arrived they saw the 49-year-old victim conscious and alert, but with an injury to his left jaw.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rebuffed a bid by Republican legislators in Pennsylvania to reinstate a congressional district map struck down by that state’s top court as unlawfully biased in favor of Republicans. The high court in June failed to determine whether partisan gerrymandering violates the U.S. Constitution after hearing high-profile cases from Wisconsin and Maryland. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down the 2011 map and later adopted the new map in time for use during the par

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rebuffed a bid by Republican legislators in Pennsylvania to reinstate a congressional district map struck down by that state’s top court as unlawfully biased in favor of Republicans.

A new state electoral map, devised by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court after it invalidated the Republican-drawn districts in January, is seen as giving Democrats a better shot at gaining seats in the U.S. House of Representatives in the Nov. 6 congressional elections in which President Donald Trump’s fellow Republicans are seeking to retain control of Congress.

The case involves a practice called partisan gerrymandering in which electoral maps are drafted in a manner that helps one party tighten its grip on power by undermining the clout of voters that tend to favor the other party. The high court in June failed to determine whether partisan gerrymandering violates the U.S. Constitution after hearing high-profile cases from Wisconsin and Maryland.

The justices on Monday rejected the Republican appeal of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling throwing out the previous Republican-drawn map because it violated the state constitution’s requirement that elections be “free and equal” by marginalizing Democratic voters.

The high court previously rejected two Republican requests to block the new district boundaries that the state high court issued to replace the old map, which had been in effect since 2011. Republicans have held 13 of the state’s 18 U.S. House seats since 2011 despite Pennsylvania being a closely divided bellwether state.

A group of 18 Democratic voters sued in Pennsylvania last year to challenge the Republican-drawn maps. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down the 2011 map and later adopted the new map in time for use during the party nominating contests in May.

The state’s Republican legislative leaders urged the justices to intervene and overturn the ruling by the state court, which they accused of usurping the legislature’s authority over redistricting. The Democratic voter challengers told the justices it is long-settled law that the U.S. Supreme Court cannot review a state court’s interpretation of state law.

State and federal legislative district boundaries are reconfigured after the U.S. government conducts a census every decade. Partisan gerrymandering has been used for two centuries but has become more extreme with the use of computer programs to maximize its effects in a way that critics have said warps democracy.

The Supreme Court in the past has disallowed gerrymandering intended to discriminate against racial minorities but has not curbed partisan gerrymandering.